more on Cell phones on planes worry US law enforcement

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Rick Bradley <rick () rickbradley com>
Date: May 28, 2005 5:57:46 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Cc: Ip ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Cell phones on planes worry US law enforcement


For IP if you like.

* David Farber (dave () farber net) [050528 16:25]:

> Cell phones on planes worry US law enforcement
> Fri May 27, 2005 03:26 PM ET
> By Jeremy Pelofsky
> <http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml? 
> type=technologyNews&storyID=8631101&src=rss/technologyNews>
[...]

> Paranoia

Agreed, Dave -- ironically the highest-profile known use of cell phones
in flight for coordination (during a terrorist attack, even) was by
passengers on board Flight 93 who it is widely believed were able to
sabotage the hijackers' plans by coordinating with friends and family on
the ground over cell phones.  The actions on Flight 93 clearly
demonstrate that cell phone communication in flight has long been
possible, and its use by passengers allows them access to intelligence
to coordinate their retaliation against attack underway.

Does "US law enforcement" believe that new laws will deter terrorists
from using their cell phones in flight?  Perhaps the point is that
anyone using a phone in flight will be subject to increased scrutiny by
passengers, and hence attacks will be nipped in the bud?  What about SMS
messaging -- couldn't terrorists just as easily coordinate by txtng each
other?  Perhaps the plan is to institute a mobile police state in the
sky where sky marshalls are cuffing cell phone owners for playing too
much Sonic the Hedgehog mid-air?

And, how, we might ask, would a ban on cell phone use have affected the
9/11 hijackers?  There was such a ban in place on 9/11 and it affected
the hijackers not a whit.

This is busybodying masquerading as "security".  There's nothing secure
about limiting the ability of the populace to communicate, and there's
no deterrent in a law that purports to limit the actions of terrorists
willing and planning to die as part of their attack.

Were I not trying to be less cynical I'd say the plan was the brainchild
of the airlines, hoping to continue the $N/minute captive call cost from
back-of-the-seat phones.  Surely airline lobbyists don't have that much
pull...

Rick
--
 http://www.rickbradley.com    MUPRN: 836
                       |  Actually, it
   random email haiku  |  was the same user all the
                       |  time. I tried grip.


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/